Chronic Right Ventricular Pacing Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Attenuates the Benefit on Left Ventricular Function.

Background: Conduction abnormality post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains clinically significant and usually requires chronic pacing. The effect of right ventricular (RV) pacing post-TAVI on clinical outcomes warrants further studies. Methods: We identified 147 consecutive patients who required chronic RV pacing after a successful TAVI procedure and propensity-matched these patients according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score to a control group of patients that did not require RV pacing post-TAVI. We evaluated routine echocardiographic measurements and performed offline speckle-tracking strain analysis for the purpose of this study on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) images performed at 9 to 18 months post-TAVI. Results: The final study population comprised 294 patients (pacing group n = 147 and non-pacing group n = 147), with a mean age of 81 ± 7 years, 59% male; median follow-up was 354 days. There were more baseline conduction abnormalities in the pacing group compared to the non-pacing group (56.5% vs. 41.5%. p = 0.01). Eighty-eight patients (61.6%) in the pacing group required RV pacing due to atrioventricular (AV) conduction block post-TAVI. The mean RV pacing burden was 44% in the pacing group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar at follow-up in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups (57 ± 13.0%, 59 ± 11% p = 0.31); however, LV global longitudinal strain (-12.7 ± 3.5% vs. -18.8 ± 2.7%, p < 0.0001), LV apical strain (-12.9 ± 5.5% vs. 23.2 ± 9.2%, p < 0.0001), and mid-LV strain (-12.7 ± 4.6% vs. -18.7 ± 3.4%, p < 0.0001) were significantly worse in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups. Conclusions: Chronic RV pacing after the TAVI procedure is associated with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction within 1.5 years of follow-up.

Sequential administration of peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders-A retrospective tolerability and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Access to Care and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Nephrolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the impact of nephrolithiasis diagnosis and treatment on health care utilization and identify predictors of barriers to care in the patient population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the All of Us Database, a National Institutes of Health database targeting recruitment of underrepresented populations. Patients with a diagnosis of kidney stones were included and matched to a control group. Primary outcomes were patients' self-reported health care access and utilization. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 9173 patients with a diagnosis of nephrolithiasis were included and matched to 9173 controls without a diagnosis of nephrolithiasis. Patients with kidney stones were less likely to have had >1 year since last provider visit (1.7% vs 3.8%, P <.001), but did not report increased delays obtaining care (31%), inability to afford care (11.4%), or higher likelihood of skipping medications (12.9%). Among patients with stones, 1208 (13.2%) had been treated surgically. On multivariable analysis, younger age, female sex, lower income, lower education, non-insured status, and lower physical and mental health were all associated with delays obtaining care, difficulty affording care, skipping medications, and/or prolonged time since seeing a provider. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of nephrolithiasis and subsequent surgical intervention were not associated with an increase in patient-reported barriers to care. However, among patients with nephrolithiasis, younger, comorbid, female patients from lower socioeconomic status are at significant risk of being unable to access and utilize treatment.

Implementation of a Liver Transplant-Specific TEE Guide to Expand TEE Utilization and Improve Workflow During Orthotopic Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is being increasingly utilized during orthotopic liver transplantation to guide perioperative management. Obstacles of improving TEE utilization include the challenge of becoming familiar with the TEE machine, optimizing TEE images, and translating skills acquired in didactic or simulator center-based training into clinical use. METHODS: In an effort to expand TEE utilization and improve workflow among the liver transplantation (LT) anesthesiologists at our institution, a LT-specific TEE guide was created to serve as a reference and educational tool during LT. A 26-question survey was distributed to all LT anesthesiologists before and 6 months after implementation of the LT-specific TEE guide. RESULTS: All seven LT anesthesiologists completed the survey questions during the study period. No statistically significant difference was detected in participant-reported confidence in optimizing targeted TEE views, performing technical aspects of the exam, navigating the knobs on the TEE machine, or in ability to identify abnormal cardiac pathology during the study period. One participant became basic-TEE certified during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a liver transplant-specific TEE guide is a strategy to expand TEE utilization, encourage longitudinal TEE education and reinforce concepts learned from hands-on education sessions; however, we did not detect a difference in participant-reported confidence of performing a TEE exam, ability to identify abnormal cardiac pathology or altering workflow. Further studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of a LT-specific TEE guide.